Did prolonged jury-trial bans during the pandemic violate the Sixth Amendment's Speedy Trial Clause, especially as to those accused who were jailed during the bans?

Question Presented “Since March 2020, we may have experienced the greatest intrusions on civil liberties in the peacetime history of this country.” Arizona v. Mayorkas, 143 8. Ct. 1312, 1314 (2023) (Statement of Gorsuch, J.). Although the Court’s pandemic cases so far have focused on executive actions, the judiciary is responsible for some of the most significant suspensions of constitutional rights in response to the coronavirus. The Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of a speedy jury trial “is one of the most basic rights preserved by our Constitution.” Klopfer v. North Carolina, 386 U.S. 2138, 226 (1967). Many federal and state courts across the country nevertheless barred all criminal jury trials for months on end, often with little or no meaningful justification. The Central District of California, for example, prohibited jury trials for 15 months, without explaining why that was necessary despite state courts within that district holding many hundreds of jury trials during the same period while facing the same public-health challenges. The petitioner spent that entire period languishing in jail, even though he repeatedly asked to be either tried or released on bond. The question presented is: Did prolonged jury-trial bans during the pandemic violate the Sixth Amendment’s Speedy Trial Clause, especially as to those accused who were jailed during the bans? ii